Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF

From: Martin Rex <Martin.Rex at sap.com>
To: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Cc: ietf at ietf.org, ned+ietf at mauve.mrochek.com, martin.rex at sap.com, iljitsch at muada.com, csp at csperkins.org
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:16:14 +0200 (MEST)
In-reply-to: <4A526481.3010303 at gmx.de> from "Julian Reschke" at Jul 6, 9 10:54:25 pm

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Martin Rex wrote:
> > ...
> > Personally I don't like XML at all, and the IETF should NEVER standardize
> > on a particular tool, if any, but only on a very restricted subset of
> > XML tags, if any.  (So that tools more mainstream languages can be
> > produced and used).
> > ...
> 
> Could you please elaborate what you mean by "restricted subset of XML tags"?

Something that is sufficiently simple and clear that you can
read and understand its semantics while knowing little about XML
and that one is able to write a discrete parser in a more mainstream
programming languange and NOT use any weird and incompatibly-revved
XML-libraries.

-Martin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
  - From: Julian Reschke

References:
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
  - From: Julian Reschke

Prev by Date: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Next by Date: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Previous by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Next by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.